A Country Moving Towards the…

Left. Right Center. Who Knows. We all know what the different factions tells us. The left says the country has moved to the left, and as such their extreme left agenda is what the people want and need. The right tells us the country is on their side. Scott Brown proved it after all. A lot of pundits tell us that the country is primarily in the center, with dwindling numbers the further away from that median you you get. Who to believe? I say believe what you want. It does not matter what they say or what we believe. At least… it shouldn’t matter. We find ourselves in today’s world arguing incessantly about which direction the country needs to move. Political pundits preach the virtues of either cutting taxes or increasing them. And a support of a single issue is constantly considered an endorsement for that entire ideal. And that, dear readers, is a small microcosm of the problem with today’s non-representing representatives. That they represent the people or thier party is a constant debate. What is not part of the debate is whether they represent a solution. And for the record, I am going back to the Open mic tonight to answer some posts from Ray and others, so check that out too.

I was reading an article the other night discussing what President Obama needs to do in order to succeed. The question was whether he needed to embrace the far left and go faster and further in that direction, or should he become a centrist in order to get things done? And so we are clear, for the purpose of this article, the definitions of right, left, and center, are the commonly understood versions, not the JAC, BF, USW, PeterB definitions. The first problem with the article lies in what I think was the most profound ommission: a definition of what they meant by “succeed”.

What defines success for President Obama is very different according to who you may ask. For some, success means that he is able to pass through an ultra far left agenda, moving the country towards a state that is more socialist or fascist in nature. For others, success may mean that he is able to make the country “better” than he found it (economically stronger, better international relationships, more green, or more “fair”). When we fail to define what the definition of success is, we cannot come to any conclusions about how to achieve that goal. If the goal is to get to a more socialistic state (and let’s begin by recognizing it as a structure, not a slander), then I would imagine that one strategy might be to move farther left and stand his ground. If the goal is economic prosperity, I would imagine some would feel the best way to achieve success would be to move more towards the center or even the right.

If I were the one to define what is a success, I would say that success is reaching a state of less government by the end of his term than what it was at the beginning. After all, in my opinion less government equals more freedom. But I acknowledge that I, along with those believing as I do, am a minority at this point in our culture. So my definition of success is not what is in play here. It SHOULD be, but it isn’t. So we first have to come up with a way to define what the President needs to accomplish to be successful.

I understand that for Charlie, who espouses a form of socialism, that a growing government and more social programs and industry regulation is success. And I understand that for BF, who seeks a world without rulers, a smaller government and less entitlement programs and industry regulation by government is success. But for the majority of Americans, this is not the case. Most Americans simply want things to get “better”. So let’s set the President’s bar for success at improving the economic fortunes of America, ensuring that all Americans have equal opportunity (not outcomes), and improving the country’s relationship with the rest of the world so that we can continue to grow and prosper. Is there anything about those goals that folks have an issue with? I wouldn’t think so, but I am just one man, and thus just a single opinion.

So if those are the goals, and I do understand that because they are the goals I have stated certainly does not mean that those are the goals of the President, the question becomes whether the President needs to move to the left, the right, the center, or whatever. But before you answer, I ask that you consider my answer and then consider my questions at the end.

I think that the answer is “none of the above.” How ridiculous that the pundits and politicians and partisan hacks all feel that the only answer to what cures America lies in a single ideology. Moving towards the right is not the answer. Moving towards the left is not the answer. The only answer is moving towards success. And no single ideology is going to be the best way to do that. Charlie Stella, you have to understand (and I know that you do) that moving everything in America towards socialism is not going to cure all of our ills. We have seen enough of the fall of communism and the failures of socialism to know that there are great pitfalls in adopting that mentality. And to believe that “this time it will work because we will do it better” is silly. And those on the right are just as silly if they think all the answers lie in the ideology of the ultra-conservative movement or the religious right mentality. Heck, even the Libertarians are wrong to believe that instituting a truly free market tomorrow simply won’t work, as it would take quite a transition period for it to not topple our economy completely.

No my friends, putting our faith in the hands of one portion of the country’s political landscape is foolish and naive. In today’s volatile political landscape, we have allowed the politicians to dictate to us that one side is right and the other is wrong. That’s just dumb. What needs to happen in America is an embracing of the idea that neither side has a monopoly on what will work. Both sides have ideas that, if worked on in the right ways, can improve our situation. Let’s take a look at health care reform as an example.

Forget my personal opinions, let’s look at this from a hypothetical standpoint. The current legislation is curved dramatically to the left. The Republicans were basically shut out of negotiations. The ideas to reform one sixth of our economy have basically all come from the Democrats. Are we foolish enough to believe that the only good ideas for health care reform existed in the ideology of the far left? That’s insane. Perhaps there is merit in some of the ideas that are present in the current legislation (remember, this is hypothetical, lol). And perhaps those good ideas couple with some of the ideas from the Republicans (tort reform, for example), would be even better for us in the long run. But instead, the two sides remain more committed to the idea that it has to be done according to their ideology than to the idea that it has to be done right, effective, and efficiently. Today’s Congress is more committed to political ideology than they are to the people they are elected to serve. As a result, they don’t strive to get it right, they strive to get it their way. And we all lose.

Apply that example to the entire government and we can see why we are all so screwed. Nobody in Washington DC has any interest in getting it right. So the question they ask is whether the President should move more left or more right, instead of determining that the direction doesn’t matter. The President needs to move towards more effective and more efficient and more inclusive and more realistic. Most important, the President needs to move towards more honest, because to say that Washington DC lacks honesty and integrity is like saying the ocean is wet.

And here is the shame of the situation. In Barack Obama, we have perhaps the most persuasive speaker as a President in the last 50 years. We have a man who has the ability to do exactly that. If only he wanted to, but he doesn’t. He would have the power to demand true transparency in legislation. He would have the power to foster an environment where Democrats and Republicans work together to create common goals and solutions. He would have the power to demand that government makes its case to the American people and lets them decide what the best path forward should be. He is the first President in a very long time who has the ability to make the definition of success be effective and efficient. But alas, he is a partisan like every one before him. And his intent is not to be successful as we have defined it here. His intent is to further the agenda of the left in whatever way is made possible.

So my question is this: Are we too far gone to ever reach a point where a truly non-partisan could ever reach a position where such a change is possible? If a person came along who was “cool” like Obama and who was as persuasive and gifted in speaking as Obama, would it be possible for that person to attain the Presidency? And if that person did, is it even possible for them to do what I have suggested? Is it a pipe dream to think that someone could come along and rally Americans to do it right instead of doing it Republican or Democrat?

I ask because I fear that if the answer is no, then we will continue on the see saw ride between Democrats and the GOP, each flailing to make improvements with only half the solutions as an option, and each simply growing government in different ways. And if that is the case, I fear that a revolution will come once Americans decide that government has overstepped its bounds one too many times, increased taxes too much, or stepped on the freedom in a way that crosses a line.

There is no right “direction” for the President to move. Both parties have a few good ideas and a whole bunch of bad ones. But even if Obama himself tomorrow decided that a move to the left is wrong, and embraced what I am saying here, would he have a chance in trying to make it actually happen?

*** And now for my disclaimer. As many of you know, I am a proponent of individual liberty and personal freedom. Being self reliant and personally responsible. As such, I believe both parties have gone off their rocker. If you ask me how to fix this, we must find that rock star candidate with all the persuasive skills of Obama, but who espouses a different path, one of principled government where liberty, freedom, and non-initiation of violence is the base that everything else must flow from. This article falls into the category of dealing with “what is” as opposed to reforming government to what I would ultimately like to see it become (as you may recall I stated that some articles would deal with what we have and others would discuss what we should have, this is the former). VDLG doesn’t yet fit into the political spectrum in Washington DC. If it did, this article would look much different.

Comments

I watched Neil Cavuto yesterday. Pat Cadell (sp), Democratic Pollster, was on. Pat said that he is seeing for the first time in his life a ground swell of anti-government sentiment growing in this country that neither party understands. The fight is over saving the country. Pat said that this is not a small populist movement. The MA election was about stopping the government. People see and know that what the government is doing can destroy our country.

So far, this movement (call it the tea party movement) has not stopped the President or Congress from pushing more behind the door meetings for health care. Nancy Pelosi said that they will do whatever it takes to pass health care. Debt limits continue to rise and spending and more spending is still happening. However, the people are watching and they are upset with what they see. For perhaps the first time, people are seeing that government is an entity that does what it wants to, when it wants to, and how it wants to despite what the people want.

You can hate Glenn Beck all you want to but he is educating people on the progressive movement and his audience numbers continue to grow. People are desperate for information, for the facts and the truth, and they know that government will not provide them with the truth and will lie to their face. Obama, in my view, lies all the time and I know other people see the same. I don’t believe anything he says or any other government official. The game is close to being over. I don’t know what will happen but people are awake and paying attention to the entity called government.

Boy, if we only had millions of brochures on VDLG that we could distribute to the citizens. I think the people would take them and read them. How does that saying go, strike when the iron is hot. We need our own billionaire for financial support, our own George Soros.

Birdman, I like your VDLG brochure idea. Why not put one together and post it here. Maybe just us SUFAs, spread out all over the country, could copy enough to distribute in our own communities just to get the idea floating to those who have never considered it… baby steps..community organizing our way.

Not sure if this is where you want this conversation to go but here are a few folks who I think have what it takes to either run the country or to gather the right people together to run it. Notice there are no current congressmen/women. No Dem pols either. Haley Barbour – Rick Perry – Judge Napolitano – Sarah Palin – Ollie North – Colonel Hunt – Wayne Root.

Do Not Take a Sip! I know yours were a joke but actually I was serious. Notice i said “or to gather the right people together to do it” You may be right about Barbour but I still like him. I threw him in because he comes from the heartland-you know- middle America.

Sorry, my campaign educated me. There will never, ever, ever be a good, honest person who can even run a mainstream campaign, much less be “allowed” to be elected. The rules of the system (and FEC) completely prevent any possibility of it ever happening. Sorry to disillusion you.

But, this knowledge has allowed me to stop wasting my time on rainbow-chasing and start spending it on things that can really make a difference.

I doesn’t matter whom you suggest. The folks who are destroying America will not stop. It wouldn’t matter what actual names you mention, the Left and their supporters will behave in exactly the same fashion. This is about destroying capitalism and individual freedom, to usher in the Socialist/Communist Utopia.

I would side with Ray on his view of your list Anita, with one exception. That is the Judge. Ray, I don’t know why you call him a lier but his legal views are grounded in strict constitutional theories. That is what we need in our judiciary and in our citizenship. Use the legislative branch to change the law, not 9 judges.

Ray, your list was funny with one exception. Hershel Walker might actually have something to contribute. I’ll take Hershel and Joe the Plumbr and Bob the Fireman.

Hope you both have a great day.
JAC

P.S. Ray, I did hear you. Been trying to get some articles preped for USW but Thangs have gotten in the way. Should clear up soon though.

I am really disappointed that you did not put me on the list, Ray. Sigh……..And I so want to be Military Csar…..HEAVIER SIGH.

Ok, in reality, I think everyone is missing your point. Obama can only call for transparency….he cannot force it at all. Congress will tell him to go to the proverbial hot place…and we ain’t talking Presidio, Texas. He is powerless to force Congress into transparency by simply ordering it and he knows it. He can look good on TV yelling about it but nothing will happen.

However, there is one way to get attention of the people. When Congress does something stupid, which is every minute it is in session, use the Veto and kill it.
If Congress goes into closed door sessions and passes a bill without transparency….Veto it…and force a 2/3 override. THAT is how it can be controlled, I think.

Ok Anita…..as to Rick Perry….one thing to remember…he is a politician BUT he does vote the way Texas now thinks. He is a good ol’ boy that likes trips to the Bahamas. (It did not play out well because Texas let him know about it)…he did not get his way with imminent domain and the Trans Texas Corridor.

Right now, he is saying, and doing, the right things. He is ok….but….keep in the back of your mind that he is a politician (Oh, how I love to do a little side step type) that needs a leash. We have him on a short leash now.

Therein lies the real problem Anita. Those of us (I say us loosely as I was not on your list) who seem like we might be a good person to have in office are not interested in being President of the United States. I don’t think if I ever enter back into the political realm I would ever move beyond state leadership. National politics these days is no place for a person with values or principles.

At least I’ll know how to set the terms for bank loans … instead of giving bailed out banks a $38 BILLION tax break (some socialist, President Fredo is), I’ll do what they (banks) do to us … compound the interest and squeeze them dry.

Stella for President … he may be ugly, but he sure will “change” things …

LOL. No need for wiggling. I am far past the point of feeling offended if someone feels it is above my paygrade, below my paygrade, or because they think I am actually king of the universe. When government becomes more what I believe it should be, I imagine that I might be persuaded to want to participate.

Obama can demand true transparency in legislation – but alas he does not control the process. When leaders from the other side of the aisle clearly articulate that their goal is the ensure failure of the President, no matter the cost, then the speaking abilities of the President become largely irrelevant. Its almost as if there needs to be extreme partisanship in order to clear the air and really call attention to the sausage making on each side – after all – isn’t the first step to actually admit you have a problem? Politicians are like most lawyers – they are very adept at operating in shades of gray – rather than be direct and to the point – as long as there is wiggle room then they will wiggle.

I’m uncomfortable saying we need a rockstar at all – so many studies I have seen point out that truly successful leaders must also possess some traits/qualities that are less than desirable on their own – for example – it is considered by many of the researchers and theorists that great leaders need some narcissism. I have a hard time with this – but equally hard time pointing out a great leader that did not have some elements of narcissism.

And yes – I think this type of conversation leads us back down the path of underlying philosophy (you hear me JAC?). I read you article and say “hmmmm, sounds like a relativist”.

Bull****, Ray. If Obama really wanted transparency he could get it. Sure he does not control the process, but he could scold congressmen and actively pursue openness. Instead he encourages back room deals and flat out bribes. In the same way, he could have stopped the racism talk during the election if he really wanted to. All he has to do is stand up on principles. You underestimate the power of the head democrat as the head American.

@JB – “Bullshit”? Okay wise-one – how about you educate me on how Obama gets transparency to come out of Congress? My point, that you didn’t bother to get, is that short of going extreme partisan (e.g. calling people out) to clear the deck and come back to transparency, there is little in official capacity he can do. He does not make the rules for Congress and he runs the risk of meddling in the affairs of an equal branch of government. The solution for Congress is organic or we need to accept that politics will get uglier before it gets prettier. How’d you feel about POTUS calling out SCOTUS during the SOTU?

All he would have to do is to put the Congress on notice that he won’t put upo with “business as usual” and then threaten to VETO anything put on his desk that wasn’t fully an openly debated. Then he needs to follow through. That is what is known as standing on principle. If Congress really wants it, then force them to override his veto. That is not meddling in the affairs of the Congress, and it is keeping not only within the rule of the Constitution, but also within the spirit.

I don’t attempt to call myself wise, all I can do is use logic and reason to come to a reasonable conclusion. Which do you think helps transparency more? Calling for transparency in a campaign or calling for transparency during a debate? Which has Obama done? I already stated that I realize he has no control over the process, but with his political clout you would have to be blind or stupid to think he can’t influence his own party.

(a) President Obama, in his official capacity he cannot change the rules of Congress, nor should he;

(b) In unofficial capacity I believe he would have to become more “partisan” and perhaps even somewhat non-Presidential. Call outs for more transparency should apply to everyone, including his own party. If folks are okay with that then they need to be okay for a President that is not as Presidential as we idealize. Know that it can be a slippery slope and have unintended consequences.

If the president is calling for honesty and openness in congress he does not have to become more “partisan.” If he is calling out any politician, not because he or she is left or right, but because they are not being open, how is that being partisan? What I want is the president to stand up to congress and tell them to be more transparent as the people obviously want them to.

That would improve my opinion of our president and, in my opinion, make him MORE presidential. We want a leader who LEADS, who encourages lawmakers to be honest and open. How does that make him less presidential? Before you invoke the slippery slope, you need to clear state why you believe he is on the slope at all.

JB…in the perfect society, a President should call out a Congress person, however, in the separation of powers, he has no control over what Congress can or cannot do. He can campaign all he wants about C span but if Congress does not want it…it will not happen.

Can Obama control his party? I think he has proven that he cannot. He might influence a few but control it…no. Pelosi controls it.

Would I like to see a real leader….you bet I would. But if President Obama calls out the democrats, he will be accused of partisan politics to the right. If he calls out republicans, the same will happen from the left.

If he veto’s a democratic bill, he will be partisan again from the left…the same from the right should it happen.

He can have an agenda but if not supported by Congress…it goes nowhere. If he issues an executive order, Congress can merely negate it with a new law.

But I am with you on leadership…show it. Use the Veto for the betterment of the COuntry and not the party.

I would agree with you on a technical level but as Redleg pointed out he is not powerless.

I think he had a chance. That chance is now gone.

I don’t think he can get it back. Even if he suddenly got the message and became a populist, railing against both sides. Perhaps he could, if most of the people still want HIM to succeed as well. But my sense is that far to many see him as a liar himself. Its hard to get back your Mojo once that happens.

The next year will be the tell. I am not sure he has it in him to make that move. I submit that I could be wrong as well.

Hello? Who’s been holding closed door meetings at the WH? This guy doesn’t want any transparency on his agenda. He’s an active participant in this transparency debacle, let alone the other ways mentioned above that he could affect it.

Good thoughts USW. I was actually thinking about this last night and your article helped to crystallize my thoughts.

I believe partisan politics have infected this country to the core. Somehow, people on the left actually believe that those on the right just want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Those on the right actually believe that those on the left just want to take from the rich to give to people who slack off all day. What happened to honest political dialog? Why can’t we stop believing the worst motive behind those of another value system and try to come to meaningful results that we can all agree on? That’s the problem.

I hate hearing that Repubs right now are just being obstructionist. Dems are trying to force through whatever they want and toss in a few tax cuts and expect the repubs to hop on board despite the conservative values they trample and despite what the people themselves want. If you don’t go along with the dem’s plans you must be obstructionist, there is no way you could actually be against the plan… Now one thing that makes me furious is that some repubs are doing just that because it is politically expedient and dems are doing something much the same. When there are votes exactly along party lines, I know there is something wrong. Forget your principles, don’t think, just do what the machine wants. That’s the problem.

I want to see an end to the major political parties. No more voting along party lines, take a moment to think about what is right and vote that way. I’ve said this before, but political polarization will be the doom of this country. Obama has been the worst for this recently. Calling for bipartisanship while doing nothing but encourage liberals to keep hammering and scolding conservatives for standing up for their values. He can say he’ll take tort reform until he’s blue in the face, but I doubt he’ll ever actually push it at the democrats in congress.

The sad thing is that I know this won’t happen and that everyone (if you truly allow yourself to think about it) can come to the same conclusion but will do nothing about it.

How many people, do you think, know why social security is causing such a problem? In the 60’s we had 18 people paying in for every one paying out. That number has dropped from 8 to 1 in the 70’s to 3 to 1 in the 80’s and now we’re getting close to 2 to 1. Seems like there should be plenty in the fund, right? Why is it broke? The government “borrowed” the money to spend elsewhere!

Imagine if I did this… I’m saving up for a rainy day (say to pay my mortgage if I lose my job). I’ve got a nice fund going, but I decide to take that money and use it to buy a big screen TV. When I lose my job and the bills come in I certainly can’t borrow money from China to pay it off.

How in the world does such fiscal irresponsibility control our country?!?!?! When will we start acting like responsible adults instead of stupid, greedy children?!?!

Now the government wants to do the same thing. If the TARP money was returned it was supposed to (passed as LAW in the congress) be paid toward the debt. Instead we want to SPEND it!?!?!

May God have mercy on us when we destroy ourselves and the rest of the world with our irresponsibility!

No, its not JB. I too, feel your frustration. I saw some friends last night and we were talking about the very same thing. No one is happy about what’s going on, assuming that is, they’re paying attention. Too many still, are not. Saw last night where Dear Reader’s approval rating is at 47%. WTF???? What is wrong with thouse people??? Are they all on welfare or something?

Great point about the fewer paying in JB. My former step-father chastised me as one of those selfish, irresponsible people who chose not to have children who would cause the collapse of the social security system :insert eyeroll here:

Personally, I think the main problem is that the two main parties have to much power in the election arena. which is the first step in politics-Why do the parties get to decide so much-who’s gonna run, what type of election we’re gonna have-who came up with the caucus, which is just stupid and really undemocratic, and why should they be able to have super delegates or not have super delegates. Why don’t we have standard election rules that all must follow? We need to figure out ways to lesson the power of the parties at the jump off point. As long as the parties have so much power the President is going to be hog tied by his own party. Yes he can step out and effect a lot of things if he’s brave enough but he too is controlled to much by party power.

Hmmmm…the party of D13……hmmmmmm…………..naaah ! BF would not like my submarines off the coast of Russia and the Persian Gulf, my Raptomese Cavalry ridden by armed menopausal women, my star wars laser guided sharks, my drone infantry with a Borg mentality, a chicken in every pot (if you can afford it), a car in every garage (if you can buy it), gold standard economy, a balanced budget and pay as you go system, equal trade dollar for dollar, no deficit spending, no debt ridden society, no lawyers, no politicians, no lobbyists, everyone owns a gun and knows how to use it, no entitlement programs without work related compensation, Dr Pepper in every fridge, beer and pizza a basic food group, potato chips a required tv snack (with dip, of course), a college playoff system, no cable news, no msm, no billboards on the highways, no EPA, no global warming, Al Gore as a comedian, George Bush stays on his ranch and stays quiet, Obama goes back to Hawaii, Nancy Pelosi, et al goes back to Kpax (alien universe for those who have not seen the movie)….and this is what I would do in my FIRST year.

Crud…I left out my closing remarks…..mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmm. Now I feel better. Hoisting a DP and slurping it loudly, along with a Heshey Milk Chocolate bar (not a small one either)…..and all before 9 am. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!

USW….now that my comedy minute is over…..I think that there really is a ground swell beginning. At least it seems this way. It is interesting in our Governor race in Texas, Debra Medina is as close to VDLG as one can get right now. It is amazing that before the first debate with Perry and Hutchinson, she was a nobody. She is a state’s right person, less Federal Gov’t and after the first debate, she went from 4% popularity to 16% and after the second debate, she is now over 20% and could throw this race into a runoff. Her less government interference, state’s right stance is resonating. Her approach to illegal immigration is resonating. Her approach at abolishing the Robin Hood tax code for schools is resonating. She will probably not edge out anybody but the fact that her popularity over Perry, who has been here 9 sessions, and Hutchinson, who is a Washington trained politician, is growing…Perry and Hutchinson are going to have to attack her. But the attack probably will not go very far because she is anti-big government and anti Washington. It is very interesting….because, in Texas, you must have 50.1% of the vote to avoid runoff. Perry is at 46%, Hutchinson at 32% and Medina now to 22% proves to mean that she can influence a runoff greatly. But, she is being pushed by my veterans organizations and others and we are getting the word out and it is working.

So my question is this: Are we too far gone to ever reach a point where a truly non-partisan could ever reach a position where such a change is possible? If a person came along who was “cool” like Obama and who was as persuasive and gifted in speaking as Obama, would it be possible for that person to attain the Presidency? And if that person did, is it even possible for them to do what I have suggested? Is it a pipe dream to think that someone could come along and rally Americans to do it right instead of doing it Republican or Democrat?

Answers: Yes, no and no.

Politicians are bought and sold long before they can make it to the presidence. Obama used backdoor tactics to win his first seat. He came to office at the exact right time (for his candidacy), post a disasterous Bush 8 years and nothing significant to oppose him beyond Hillary. The Reps might have found something in Scott Brown, but I’d argue he’s already bought and sold too.

As to power to change … the finanicial “crisis” is the answer to your question. Big money screwed up and big money got bailed out (by us) … that will NEVER change (why I’m not pro capitalism at all).

I only wish someone could come along to rally Americans but the truth of the matter is we’re one very spoiled country (and I’ll admit that has to do with entitlements) … but mostly we’re high on technology and/or struggling to survive. Way too few take politics seriously and/or have given up on politics (for good reason).

As I stated on my site two posts ago … I encourage voters to support anything BUT the two major parties … they need to be voted out of office. Vote Commmunist, Socialist … or even Libertarian … anything but Republican or Democrat; they are two sides of the very same coin.

Obama leans to the left? He threw the left a single bone so far (repeal don’t ask/don’t tell). That’s it. He gave up on single payor and if he did anymore for Wall Street, he could move the oval office there.

Are the Bills playing Sunday? That’s what I think when I hear Obama is a socialist. What are we smoking?

I agree with most of your post. The part about Capitalism stood out. If we we had true cpaitalism, the big money losers wouldn’t have been bailed out. They would have been allowed to fail, come what may. As for Bush, let me say I’m not a huge fan BUT, he wasn’t as bad as he was made out to be. When Obama hit the national scene in 2004, I beleive the decision was made to DESTROY Bush so that Obama could be ushered in. I believe whomever was in the Oval Office at the time, would have received the exact same treatment. Bush made it easy for them, but the outcome would have been the same even if we had Mother Teresa in office.

Voting for the Communist Paty is like voting for Demmocrats. I looked at the CPUSA website a couple of weeks ago. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought I was looking at something sponsored by the DNC.

I’m begining to think of Obama not as a Socialist, but as a proto-dictator.

All that said, I believe we have some common ground. Americans in general, are a spoiled bunch. Most have no interest in politcs. I think we as a nation, have beocme to stupid to survive.

They made no bad loans, are well capitalized are expanding into sound markets and needed no and wanted no government money.

They are all about what Capitalism should be. They held my mortgage, were fair to a fault and developed a reputation second to none for integrity.

It is not capitalism you hate but incipient fascism, ie. government/business partnership to “plan” the future. Neither you nor I want to be in that future.

Seriously though as Cyndi says, we don’t really have Capitalism. there is no arms length between the big banks, major industry and Uncle Sam.

Since I started voting in ’68 I have made it a point to vote third parties, as wild as they may be, rather than vote where either the major parties show no difference or where, in judgeships for example where the candidate may be endorsed by everybody except the dogwalkers party. In cases like that the dogwalkers always win out.

I don’t hate capitalism … I should tone that down … but in this environment it only works one way.

The bottom line, though, is money talks … how those banks were bailed out at our expense without a revolution (whether voter or otherwise) is beyond me.

Believe me, I’m not far from a Libertarian stand, except I do believe there has to be some safeguards for deserving people; I don’t believe charity would carry the day.

My wife is going through the last of her nursing school (changing careers because our jobs are losing to outsourcing). She’ll be 50 and she’s changing careers. The crap she has to put up with at her school (another beauracracy, no doubt) makes me want to end all forms of government too … sometimes.

Why didn’t the government divide all the money they gave to Wall street, etc., to each of us? Insane, right? More insane to me is that they gave it to a bunch of greedy bastards who caused their own (and our) mess. They should’ve been hung (along with any politician who agreed to bail them out).

It gets more and more frustrating … at this point I’d take ANY party (ANY) other than the two we have now. They voted themselves a raise back in September 09 … How is that possible?

Fair Lawn, NJ, pop. 38,000 a bedroom community of NYC in the past 18 months has had:

3 separate instances of egregious civil rights violations against non-whites by our ace Police department. As Carl Sagan used to say, billions and billions and if I had my libertarian druthers, I’d can the lot and put the department under the Justice department to teach them a lesson they would never forget.

A police Lt. granted over $ 200,000 in a lawsuit against the town because his patrolmen made fun of him and called him a “baby” in print when he complained about them. Dick Winters, this guy was not.

The town suddenly discovering it has been paying two town attorneys for the past two years. Neither accomplished anything mind you but the town apparently forgot to tell the old lawyer they did not need him anymore.

Lastly, my favorite, we have been hit with a 22% water rate increase because we have CONSERVED water. Apparently public utilities are GUARANTEED a certain return, when they don’t make it, we have to pay more!!! So, if we had been wastrels and used 10% more, we would have had to pay 10% more but because we are good little robotic environmentalists, we are screwed!?

BO recently had meetings with each party where Q&A happened and it was made public. I did read where the Dems part of this was staged and the questions were pre-screened (this method does not count as transparency, by the way), don’t know if this is true, but for the purpose of sharing this quote, it doesn’t matter.

Here is an exchange beetween LOI’s “beloved” Blanche Lincoln and BO:

Senator Blanche Lincoln (Democrat-Arkansas) says, “Are we willing as Democrats to also push back on our own party and look for that common ground that we need to work with Republicans and to get the answers and it’s really the results that are going to count to our constituents?”

OBAMA: Part of the reason people are feeling anxious right now, it’s not just because of this current crisis. They’ve been going through this for ten years. If you’re response ends up being, you know, uhh, “Because we don’t want to stir things up here we’re just going to do the same thing that was being done before,” then I — I — I — I don’t know what differentiates us from the other guys. Blanche is exactly right: We’ve got to be non-ideological about our approach to these things. We’ve gotta make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning. So we can’t be demonizing, uh, every bank out there. We’ve got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs.

“like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning” WHAT?
“can’t be domonizing, uh, every bank out there” WHAT?
“party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs” WHAT?

No, he knows he has overplayed his hand trying to force
thru his agenda. He is trying to regain enough of a following for the Dem’s to keep a majority. Some of the media are already calling him a centerist!

Expect him to go into a ramp-up campaign mode, full of vague goals and promises until Nov.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.

The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism. Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

I do believe both parties are aware of the dislike that people in general are having for both of the parties. There are states, Kentucky is one, that are limiting how people are voting. For example this law is in process in KY:

1) They will now let someone who is listed as a (I) vote in the primary. Which up until now was not allowed. You had be listed as a Dem or Rep to vote in the primary.
2) You can only vote for one party on your ballot. Which means if I like someone else from a another party, my ballot becomes invalid.
3) I have found 10 states already with little effort that have “closed primaries” which means no (I) are welcome.
4) Doing this they not only close out voters but candidates who want to be in that process also.

I find this outrages on all levels. Pick one of us or you are not welcome.

I totally agree, if we want to get control of our government we must get control of the system where the dems and reps can’t control who can win, by denying them access to debates, controlling the primaries, having super delegates, having a caucus instead of a real election, etc. and all the above that you listed.

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones)didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat orRepublican. Facts are Facts!!!

Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)
Program. He promised:

1.) That participation
in the Program would be Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary

2.) That the
participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their
annual Incomes into the Program, Now 7.65%

3.) That the money the participants
elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year.

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust
Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore,
would onlybe used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program.

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party
took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it
into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A:
It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and
Senate.

Q: Which Political Party
eliminated the
income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A:
The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party
started taxing Social Security annuities?

A:
The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’
deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice
President of the US

Q: Which Political Party
decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND
MY FAVORITE:

A:
That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive
Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then,
after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn
around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social
Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If
enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be
planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are
awfully sure of what isn’t so.

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND
CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE
TERM!!!

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” – Samuel Adams, 1776

I pick on the republicans next for they could have changed all of this.

In ’84 Reagan established a bipartisan commission to “fix” SS for us boomers. Rates were increased beyond the level to satisfy the ponzi scheme so that a trust fund would be available when we retired. Unfortunately, as stated above, the money was spent and SS is now or soon will be broke. Had Reagan done in ’84, what Bush wanted to do in ’05, the money would be in accounts like 401Ks that belong to us rather than spent. Congress would still have spent like a bunch of drunken sailors, but we would have our retirement money. The Dems cried foul when Bush tried to talk up privatization. Unfortunately, Bush’s arguments were pathetic. So the effort failed. Go back and figure out how much extra you put into the system since ’84 and then compound that at a decent interest rate not the fictitious 2-3% paid by T-bills. That is the argument he should have made. Also, if I was him, whenever a reporter asked about the risk of investment, I would have asked them if they had a 401K and what was it invested in.

*
**
**
**They walked in tandem, each of the ninety-two students filing
into the already crowded auditorium. With their rich maroon
gowns flowing .. and the traditional caps, they looked almost
.. as grown up as they felt.
**
**Dads swallowed hard behind broad smiles, and Moms freely
brushed away tears.
**
**This class would NOT** **pray during the
commencements—-not by choice, but because of a recent court
ruling prohibiting it. **
**The principal and several students were careful to stay
within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. They gave
inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned
divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the graduates
or their families. **
**The speeches were nice, but they were routine…..until the
final speech received a standing ovation.
**
**A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood
still and silent for just a moment, and then, it happened.** **
**All 92 students, every single one of them, suddenly SNEEZED
!!!! **
**The student on stage.. simply looked at the audience and said,
**
**’GOD BLESS YOU
**And he walked off stage….** **
**The audience exploded into applause. This graduating class
had found a unique way to invoke God’s blessing on their future
with or without the court’s approval.
**
**Isn’t this a wonderful story? Pass it on to all your
friends………and
**
**GOD BLESS YOU!!!!** **
**This is a true story; it happened at the University of
Maryland **. **
**Oh, how I wish THIS one would take off and FILL the whole
Country!!
**

Do Democrats Lack a Conscience?
By Lauri B. Regan
If only a White House reporter would ask Barack Obama this one question: “How do you look in the mirror every day?” As a majority of Americans watch in horror at the Democrats consciously driving the country on a collision course with disaster, I have become quite cynical about whether Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democratic aristocracy have consciences — and if so, how they live with themselves.

It is not just the dichotomy of Obama’s words versus his lifestyle that bear out the hypocrisy of his character and his soul (or lack thereof). It is the arrogance on display since the day he was inaugurated that is most astounding. It is the self-entitlement, the “I won,” the belief that “the big difference here and in ’94 was you got me,” and the egocentric narcissism that is not only disgusting to watch, but has additionally resulted in policies detrimental to America.

This conceit is what is driving Obama, his staff, and the Democrats in Congress to rule as dictators rather than as democratically elected leaders. And it will be the ruination of the nation if they are not all booted out as soon as possible.

The shocking steps the Democrats took to pass health care legislation prior to Scott Brown’s election are historic. The corruption, lies, and concealment were not politics as usual; they were politics of the worst kind. To what can we attribute the number of hours dedicated to the drafting and passage of a health care bill, the secrecy under which it had been drafted, the partisanship which had closed out any Republican input, and the name-calling and vehemence that pervaded the process?

The only logical conclusion is that the Democratic leadership has completely lost its mind with greed and self-grandiosity to the point that its members are ignoring their constitutional oaths of office, ignoring their role in protecting the nation, and ignoring their constituencies. Democrats are either electing to be thrown under the bus or are hanging on by a thread in order to fulfill the will of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate while completely ignoring the will of the people who elected them to office. They have gotten their hands dirty with backroom deals, bribes, and discriminating provisions in order to get something — anything — passed, just so Obama’s ego could be fed with one more faux accomplishment. And they still turned up empty.

While the mainstream media obediently ignore the seamy acts of the Democrats, the citizens of this country thankfully have woken up to the harsh reality that they have elected rogue rulers. It is bad enough that one MS-NBC host publicly stated that he would cheat and commit voter fraud just to “keep the bastards out.” It is even worse to read a mass e-mail from the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, in which he reduced himself to the level of a sniggering teenager, calling Republican candidate Scott Brown a “far right tea bagger.”

Yet, despite the devastating loss in Massachusetts, which clearly should have presented a wake-up call to these bullies, Dick Morris recently reported that “[h]ighly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare ‘reform’ and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.”

Prior to the Massachusetts revolt, Barney Frank proclaimed that “God didn’t create the filibuster,” suggesting that the Senate rules need to be amended in order to pass Obamacare. And as analyzed in an AT article last week, Frank was not alone, as many on the left, joining this chorus, continue to ignore the will of the people they were elected to represent — not to mention the intent of the Framers.

To make mtters worse, Nancy Pelosi, Queen of the House, with neither conscience nor soul, promised, “We will have health care one way or another.” Democrats have contemplated just about every option short of walking over to the National Archives building and burning the Constitution.

While the politically correct Democrats argue that waterboarding terrorists is unconstitutional and anti-American despite the fact that it inflicts no injury and has been proven to save countless American lives, those same individuals continue to torture Americans with their broken promises, exorbitant spending sprees, disregard for the interests of the nation, and threats and intimidation of those who do not fall in line.

Many have attempted to explain away the policies of the Democrats by attributing their actions to a sense of elitism and their belief that they know what is best for the country even if the voters do not. Obama even said as much when justifying the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat. However, after one year of full control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, the Democrats have proven to care about one thing, and it is not what is in the best interests of American citizens. It is power, pure and simple.

While the Democrats proceed with their anti-American and disingenuous policies based on a pompous belief that they were given a mandate to gut the Constitution and their insatiable hunger to win at all costs and ensure their control of the government for years to come, Americans have awoken to the reality of a future unimpeded by the checks and balances designed by the Founding Fathers. This country was created specifically upon a rejection of unbridled power. The founders of this great bastion of freedom understood that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Obama campaigned on promises to break from politics as usual. And the electorate bought it lock, stock, and barrel. They believed him when he promised transparency and bipartisanship, health care debates aired on C-SPAN, and no new taxes on people earning less than $250,000. With a year of broken promises, disdain for hardworking Americans, and pure greed, how is it that 47% of Americans still support this guy? It is time for those who can no longer use the Koolaid buzz as their excuse for blind support of a president devoid of conscience to take a look in the mirror. Unlike the anointed One, who adores his own reflection, we can only imagine what they will find staring back.

Taxpayers Deserve an Annual Report to the Shareholders
By Carl Paulus
Last week Democrats voted to raise the federal debt ceiling a staggering 1.9 trillion dollars, the second increase in the federal debt limit in two months. The United States debt is now 14.3 trillion dollars, or roughly $45,000 per American citizen. With President Obama submitting a budget that puts the nation 1.6 trillion dollars further in debt, it is time for conservatives to become engaged over how to slow our exploding deficit and help entrench fiscal responsibility within our governing system. Americans should receive an annual report to the shareholders from the federal government explaining how the taxes we pay are spent.

Too often we think of the U.S. government only as the referee of financial institutions. However, the federal government is also the largest single financial entity in the world. Abraham Lincoln aptly stated in the Gettysburg Address that our government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Through their tax dollars, Americans are stakeholders in this financial institution and are held liable for its financial risk. Our ownership should grant us more direct information about how the government does its business and how our investments are paying off.

On an annual basis, the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C. calculates what it calls Tax Freedom Day, the first day of the year that American workers have theoretically earned enough income to fund its annual tax burden. That tax burden, which worked to pay off until April 13 last year, is the investment of our personal wealth in the operation and services provided by the United States government. Regardless of whether the federal government obtains its money through foreign loans or taxes, Americans will eventually be the ones to pay the price of Congress’s deficit spending. Slowly, Tax Freedom Day will most certainly be pushed farther down the calendar.

In the business world, the SEC requires publicly owned companies to disclose their financial data to their shareholders. Companies send a report directly to each stockholder on a yearly basis, regardless of how much equity in the company each person owns. CEOs must explain how and why they are spending their shareholders’ money. They also have to explain the bottom line, as well as the future outlook of the company’s finances. The federal government should be held to similar standards.

Our government should be required to send its own version of a stockholder’s report to everyone who pays taxes. If the people of the United States could see how their money is spent, politicians — like board members of a company reporting to their shareholders — might be less willing to pass legislation that spends our money with reckless abandon. If American taxpayers could see on an individual basis how their money is spent, they would be more vigilant in keeping congressional spending in line.

The United States Government Accountability Office already creates a financial statement for the federal government. Every year, government watchdogs break down where our tax money goes. However, just like the quote that says one death is a tragedy while a million is a statistic, hearing politicians talk about a trillion-dollar budget can be understood only in the abstract by most taxpayers. If Americans could see how their personal contributions to the treasury were spent, they would be more likely to demand more fiscal responsibility from our elected leaders.

The report would be very simple to make. Included on our tax returns should be a simple breakdown of how our taxes were spent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the federal spending from 2009 was divided into the following: 21% on defense; 21% on Social Security; 20% on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP; 11% on “safety net” programs; and 8 % on interest on our debt, with another fifth of our spending allocated to medical research, services for our veterans, education, and other projects. The IRS could easily provide a receipt that records how much of our taxes contributed to federal spending as well as give us a brief overview of future government liabilities, such as the upcoming cost of Social Security and Medicare, per taxpayer.

The median household income in the United States according the United States Census Bureau was $50,303 in 2008. According to the IRS tax calculator, a family of four pays roughly $4,500 in federal taxes. How would most American families react to the knowledge that they pay around $360 just on interest for the federal debt? Would Americans be glad that they pay about $950 for defense and social security?

Americans want fiscal responsibility. Democrats will find it difficult to oppose this small step towards a more open government. Remember, Moveon.org worried about President Bush’s trillion-dollar deficit long before President Obama’s massive spending caught the attention of much of the public.

Alone, this modest change in how our government reports its financial standing will not put us back onto the path of fiscal responsibility, but it is a start. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government … whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” The best way to ensure that our elected officials stop spending money like it has no real consequences is to specifically show where our tax money is spent and make every taxpayer a watchdog of the federal deficit.

Carl Paulus is a Ph.D. candidate in history at Rice University and studies nineteenth-century politics.
11 Comments on “Taxpayers Deserve an Annual Report to the Shareholders”

It disappoints me that a long time American capitalist icon like Anheuser-Busch is no longer what it once was.

They were so American that they actually offered in reality, the popular idea of free beer. Imagine that!

Then they just sold out when they started having issues.

I rather resent it.

In the years leading up to the bailouts, I watched FORD do what would normally be done to stay afloat in a capitalist system. They made budget cuts and laid off a bit of it’s workforce. (A few of my friends included)

Meanwhile, so many others took the approach of consolidation to be “too big to fail.”

…And we see what that got them.

Anheuser-Busch tried to avoid the budget cuts by merging, and in the end, made the cuts anyway.

Sigh—-

They could have just done like FORD did…without selling out.

I like to purchase the occasional 6-pack, and when I do, I buy another brand besides Budweiser.

When It comes time to buy a new truck, It won’t be a Dodge or Chevy.

I’ll likely buy a FORD.

We as consumers have the power to force the corporate entities to stay American so to speak.

And IMHO, we should. It IS, OUR jobs and economy we’re dealing with.

BTW, I still appreciate Busch, Pepsi and others running Fareed out of business though.

– shocking to consider that today, the US government, right now, spends that amount of money – the entire nominal budget of the federal government of 1920 – in about 12 hours … and does so continuously, non-stop….

I’m shocked – especially considering that I think “relative share of GDP” is the best comparison. Believe used that for evaluating military budgets. I would have expected the ratio would be much higher !

Watch out people, the testosterone is loose on the blog tonight :) In all seriousness, I watched the movie The Hurt Locker tonight and it brought to mind the fact that there is a lot expected of the men folk simply because they are men, whether we are talking about military service or just life in general-I applaud your strength in unreasonable expectations and your gentleness when dealing with the love of your life or with the little blessings that the Lord blesses us with. So chill BL, you are appreciated. :)

This is not the forum for stuff like that. Respectful dialogue about politics, please. You are welcome to join in on the discussions, but keep it clean. I try to run a place where everyone is comfortable discussing the issues.

You know what BL. I was going to just let this go. I got off last night after the first Megan “Fox” comment thinking it was just stupid. Got up this morning to find you suspecting me? Twice! I’m all for fun & games but don’t put me in with your childish rambling. Thanks

She admitted to being an alien. She also said that she hoards cat food.

It all makes sense now.

You see, …she’s a secret agent from planet hulumbiantarius.

Her mission: To dose the cat food with an alien biological weapon that infects cats and then transferred to beautiful women, …giving them special above-average hypnotic mind control powers to subdue the males of our species. Thus rendering us defensless when the mother ship arrives to take over Earth.

BTW, That Diamond Rio song I understand is being banned by some radio stations because of what they’re calling it ” POLITICAL CORRECTNESS “. Please, why is the word God being phased out now. I thought this was a Christian Nation, What happened?

Can’t say One Nation Under God anymore, they want to take that out of the Pledge. Can’t hang up the American Flag without people complaining about it, or it offends them, Well, I say, then, dont’ say the pledge, and don’t look at the flag if it offends you. I find it insulting to me when the word God and the American Flag is offensive to some.

I believe there are appropriate times to have censorship-if words or contend is inappropriate for children and it’s being heard in a public venue but when ones views about religion pro or con are banned-we have a big problem.

Oh, It just ticks me off BL, I get to the point where if people don’t like what I say, or what I do, then the heck with them. I’m not out to impress anybody, I am who I am, I say what I think, and feel, and if that insults, offends, or bothers people, then that’s there problem, not mine.

I never used to be this way either. I was always a shy person who didn’t say much, but the older I got, and get I don’t keep it inside. Guess I take after my dad, he didn’t hold anything back.

Trying to catch up! Big snowstorm hitting the East. We were only supposed to get 3 to 6 by tomorrow, oops, we have 6 now in just 4 hours. All is well though, just slid home from a small paint job for a friend, had to park in the street 5 houses down because under all the snow is an inch of ice. I’ll have a friend from work come over in the AM an plow the road so I can get Betsy home, LOL.

It seems it’s hurting phone lines as well, I can’t get out on my cell or landline. Good thing I have beer and pizza! Learned much about our Haiti operations today, it’s not all that good.

No problem at all, just kidding. Damn weather guessers were wrong again. When I left work, they called for 3-6 by morning, so I went to do a small paint job for a friend, left his house, with 6 on the ground already, and the NEW report is calling for 6-10 inches. They can’t predict the weather 6 hours out, but some of these morons want to predict the GLOBAL weather a hundred years out, what a complete joke!

You’re coming here, doesn’t seem to be a problem with that part. Funny your computer works, but your phone lines don’t. When we lose phone line, we lose out computer too, we have the computer, TV, and computer service through Charter.

I have a seperate “cable line” for the computer. Actually, my phone, TV (directv) and internet are all with different companies. It is cheaper that way, look into it. My cell won’t call anything outside the local are either, it’s just the weather, will be gone tomorrow. Had to IM Dad, couldn’t call, LOL. We are getting nicely buried, which I don’t mind, kinda fun. No matter what, I will stay warm!

Actually it’s cheaper to have everything on one bill. The price I pay for phone, cable and computer turned out to be the same, so we just put it all on one. We have a separate line for the computer, have routers, one for down stairs and one for upstairs for Christopher’s room when he’s here so he can use his computer.

That’s what Dad has too. When one goes down, they all go down. Sometimes for days at a time. With my setup, short of a major power grid failure, I can get info as to what is happening. Works well for me, and it worked tonight, at least I have a form of communication with Dad, and you!

When we lose power here, I go nuts, can’t get a hold of anybody, can’t use the computer, nothing. The area we live in is good for losing power. Sometimes just out of the clear blue sky, ooops, we lost it.

Hate to do this to you, but I’m going to have to get off this thing, my fingers are killing me. Been on most of the day. I have arthritis so bad in both hands, it really hurts bad at night, even wakes me up during the night with numbness.

So, I am going to go for the night, but if you’re here tomorrow, we can chat more, but depends on weather doesn’t.

On April 1, 1947, Friedrich von Hayek delivered the opening address to an international conference held at Mont Pelerin, near Vevey, Switzerland.

Such a meeting was a rare delicacy for Europeans afflicted by severe exchange controls in the immediate aftermath to World War II.

Mont Pelerin was a rare, undamaged location on a European continent largely destroyed by a war of unprecedented physical destruction. The meeting was a time of unadulterated joy for those who attended, the scattered Remnants of the classical liberal intelligentsia, who had only recently feared the complete elimination of Western civilization under the jack-booted armies and tank divisions of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Hayek’s objective in calling this conference was as simple as it was important: to prepare for a revival of the classical liberalism that had blessed much (though not all) of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, prior to World War I.

If he succeeded in this task, the conferees would unite to build an intellectual defense against the viruses of communism and Euro-socialism that were threatening to sweep across the entire European continent; they would unite to rebuild a badly bruised philosophy that honored the individual, not the state, that honored liberty, not a state-imposed order.

“The basic conviction which has guided me in my efforts is that, if the ideals which I believe unite us, and for which, in spite of so much abuse of the term, there is still no better name than liberal, are to have any chance of revival, a great intellectual task must be performed.

This task involves both purging traditional liberal theory of certain accidental accretions which have become attached to it in the course of time, and also facing up to some real problems which an over-simplified liberalism has shirked or which have become apparent only since it has turned into a somewhat stationary and rigid creed.”

“It seems to me that effective endeavours to elaborate the general principles of a liberal order are practicable only among a group of people who are in agreement on fundamentals, and among whom certain basic conceptions are not questioned at every step.

But not only is, at this time, the number of those who in any one country agree on what seems to me the basic liberal principles small, but the task is a very big one, and there is much need for drawing on as wide an experience under varying conditions as possible.”

“the farther one moves to the West, to countries where liberal institutions are still comparatively firm, and people professing liberal convictions still comparatively numerous, the less are these people prepared really to re-examine their own convictions and the more are they inclined to compromise, and to take the accidental historical form of a liberal society which they have known as the ultimate standard.

I found on the other hand that in those countries which either had directly experienced a totalitarian regime, or had closely approached it, a few men had from this experience gained a clearer conception of the conditions and value of a free society.”

“The old liberal who adheres to a traditional creed merely out of tradition, however admirable his views, is not of much use for our purpose.

What we need are people who have faced the arguments from the other side, who have struggled with them and fought themselves through to a position from which they can both critically meet the objection against it and justify their views.”

I believe that I can accomplish this, as I have been working at it, successfully, for many months. I have been challenging the lefties constantly, and beating them in to the ground, using their own BS against them. HEHE!, It works. Many have learned the true meaning of freedom and liberty, because I care enough to speak up.

Like G, I’ve also been doing what I can to challenge and educate those with a flawed liberal suedo-logic.

One of my biggest challenges is a younger cousin. He’s VERY intelligent and in college right now being fed a great deal of liberal garbage.

I’ve tried to convince him to participate at SUFA.

I’m not sure he really cares to.

Also, I’ve been doing quite a bit of research over that last few years in regards to the political situation/state of our union, and where we are headed. I’ve tried to share what I’ve learned with others simply to raise awareness.

About two or three years ago, I was explaining to my mother, the impending economic collapse as it has been explained to me via internet, as well as the concept of the ever encroaching laws taking away our freedoms.

About two months ago, she told me that she has been paying attention, and that many of the things I had explained to her have turned out to be surprisingly accurate predictions.

A good friend of mine from high school, that happens to live somewhere near Weapon, is quite the liberal and admits some of her idealism is flawed as it’s out of ignorance. Slowly, I have been enlightening her to concepts that seem to be having an effect.

It’s a battle for the minds of our fellow Americans. And I am going at it with a frontal assault.

What is written below is from a book I’m been reading called Liberal Fascism.

“They(liberals) have a dogma, but they put it out of bounds. Instead, they force us to argue with their intentions,their motive, their feelings. Liberals are right because they care, we are told, making compassion the watchword of American politics. Liberals therefore control the argument without either explaining where they want to end up or having to account for where they’ve been.”

I find that the main problem today with fighting the new liberal stance is the above-it is based on being a good, compassionate person but they refuse to look at where their compassionate stances will lead and they refuse to look at history, which shows where it leads.

You’re right, it did bring tears to my eyes, especially at the end. But, not only rhis song, but for what I read in the paper this morning about one of our locals who died in Afghanistan on October 3rd, who they said didn’t have to die that. Apparently him and some of his unit was at at camp that should have closed in July or August but didn’t because of red tape BS.

They were surrounded by insurgents and by 6 a.m., gunfire had awoken them and there were like some 300 insurgents to only about a 100 of U.S. soldiers left in that camp, and our local boy Kevin Thomson was one of them. He was one of the 9 who died that day, and as I read the article in the paper, if that camp had closed like it should, none of them would have died. It said that about 49 insurgents were killed, and 9 of our guys were, and our local Kevin among them. So, yea, that song did bring tears to me, because I happen to think of that article I had just read.

I thought this was a kinda interesting with a new method of determining need for fuel assistance.

“Health and Human Services Administration released funds based not upon the temperature, but on a new process based upon the difference in temperature from historical levels”.

From The Snowe Report:

ISSUE OF THE WEEK: SNOWE BLASTS ADMINISTRATION FOR CUTTING CRITICAL FUNDS FOR LIHEAP PROGRAM
This week, the President sent to Congress a $3.8 trillion budget blueprint. And, given our perilous economic state, with unemployment at 9.7 percent in our country, I am deeply concerned by the President’s decision to cut Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding by $1.8 billion over last year’s level at a time when energy prices remain higher than historical levels, and the increase in unemployment has drastically increased the reliance on this program for thousands of additional families. For this reason, during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday examining the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, I called on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reexamine the Administration’s decision to cut LIHEAP funding and review the current formula that is being used to distribute emergency funding from the program.

Frankly, I am deeply troubled by the methodology used to determine the release of emergency funds for this program. This year alone, we have seen a radical difference in the amount of funding that was distributed to certain states and this was based on logic that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the intent of the LIHEAP program. Maine, for example, has received only $4.7 million in LIHEAP funding compared to the $29.7 million that state received last year from emergency funding. Under the Administration’s methodology for distribution for emergency heating assistance, the Health and Human Services Administration released funds based not upon the temperature, but on a new process based upon the difference in temperature from historical levels.

As a result of Maine’s reliance on heating oil and cold weather, Maine has historically been provided a high level of emergency funds. However, the Administration and Health and Human Services departed from historical methods of distributing emergency funds and Maine’s emergency funds allotment was reduced by nearly 80 percent compared to last year. In my view, this is an unacceptable change from historical funding methods and levels. While Secretary Sebelius said she would provide me with further details of the formula, this is an issue that I will certainly be tracking closely to ensure Maine ‘s most vulnerable families receive the assistance they need to get through the harsh winter.

The United States of America has nothing to apologize for. Why is this administration so embarrassed by America’s greatness?

In 2009 President Obama began his term in office by apologizing to the world for past-perceived U.S. transgressions of arrogance and heavy-handedness.

The president appeared to believe that if he just changed the tone he could unilaterally disarm our enemies and win back our allies.

The fact is, since Obama took office, the world is a much more dangerous place and America has been benefited from his weak of leadership and resolve.

Let’s look at the state of the world with Obama in charge:

– North Korea: The Obama administration has had NO effect on North Korea’s continued march toward maintaining and increasing their nuclear arms threat to the region and the world;
– Venezuela: Obama has become the new “Satan” according to Chavez. Our president had NO effect on better relations with a leader he criticized George Bush for isolating;
– China: Obama treats the PRC with kid gloves. Why? Because he’s afraid to offend the largest of America’s creditors. As a result China has not been helpful with North Korea, environmental responsibility or trade equality;
– The Middle East: No progress has been attempted or made with regard to real efforts to engage the parties on a lasting and sustained peace;
– Europe: The president spent a lot of time shuttling back and forth to Europe in his first year. But he came away with next to nothing to show for it. From apologizing, to pandering, picking up an undeserved medal and lobbying for the Olympics, (an effort that was doomed before he even took off from Washington), the president has come up empty handed;
– Russia: Obama surrendered our national security interests in Europe when he knuckled into Russia’s demand for America not to place missile defense systems in former USSR satellites with nothing in return to show for it.

The United States of America has nothing to apologize for. Why is this administration so embarrassed by America’s greatness?

Our nation is the freest, most generous nation on Earth. We have a long history of sticking up for and fighting for the oppressed and helping those in need. We have crossed oceans to free nations. We are willing to sacrifice our treasure and our people for a greater good and we are the first to send humanitarian and financial aid to countries hit by disaster, natural or otherwise.

Look no further than America’s response to the earthquake in Haiti, as a prime example of our power and compassion used for good. Our government and our people have offered humanitarian, military and financial aid at great sacrifice to our country at a time of deep recession.

When the chips are down to whom does the world turn to for leadership and action? The world turns to America, each and every time.

Where a calamity of Biblical proportions hit Haiti where was the rest of the world? Where was Cuba? Where was Venezuela? Where was Russia? Where was Iran? Where was North Korea? Many of the same countries that either consistently bash us or have the resources to robustly respond don’t.

When those folks attack America for its greatness and standing in the world, we should remind them that when Americans died on foreign soil standing up for their freedom, the only land we took for our own was only that which was necessary to bury our fallen.

America is a great power and for the sake of a more peaceful world we had better stay that way. Without the United States and our beliefs in freedom, liberty, humanity and justice, this world would be uninhabitable.

The barb between Obama and Republicans came a day after the government reported an unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, from 10 percent to 9.7 percent.

President Obama speaks at the opening of his jobs summit, officially known as the Jobs and Economic Growth Forum, Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009. (AP)

WASHINGTON – Republicans sparred with President Barack Obama over proposals to create jobs in dueling radio addresses Saturday, highlighting the difficulty of reaching bipartisan solutions in a political climate marked by partisan bickering.

Obama pushed Congress to use $30 billion that had been set aside to bail out Wall Street to start a new program that provides loans to small businesses, which the White House calls the engine for job growth. Republicans, meanwhile, taunted Obama with a familiar refrain: Where are the jobs the president promised in exchange for the billions of dollars already spent?

The barb came a day after the government reported an unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, from 10 percent to 9.7 percent. It was the first drop in seven months but offered little consolation for the 8.4 million jobs that have vanished since the recession began.

“Even though our economy is growing again, these are still tough times for America,” Obama said. “Too many businesses are still shuttered. Too many families can’t make ends meet. And while yesterday, we learned that the unemployment rate has dropped below 10 percent for the first time since summer, it is still unacceptably high — and too many Americans still can’t find work.”

To help the recovery, Obama asked Congress to use leftover money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, to provide to small banks so they can make more loans to small businesses. Republicans have criticized the move, arguing any money leftover from the bailout should be used to reduce the budget deficit.

In the weekly GOP address, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas chided Obama for proposing a budget on Monday that would increase spending, taxes and the national debt.

“Americans are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ but all they are getting from Washington is more spending, more taxes, more debt and more bailouts,” Hensarling said.

The Republican attack came even as key Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are working on a bipartisan jobs bill. The senators hope to unveil legislation as early as Monday that would provide tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers, extend unemployment payments for those whose benefits have run out, and renew a program that offers the jobless a subsidy for health insurance premiums.

Senate passage of a bipartisan jobs bill would mark an important political victory for Obama. But Saturday’s radio and Internet addresses showed that bipartisanship won’t be easy.

The White House has repeatedly argued that the $787 billion economic stimulus package enacted in February helped save the economy from complete collapse. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told ABC News there is a much lower risk of a double-dip recession “than at any time over the last 12 months or so.”

Hensarling, however, said the stimulus package and the growing government debt have added to the country’s economic problems.

“Democrats chose to go it alone and jam through their stimulus,” Hensarling said. “What did the American people get? A bill for $1.2 trillion and 3 million more jobs lost.”

China (PROC)A Chinese baby’s life is wasting away at the will of her parents, and a public outcry has resulted from their decision.

The child, who was born in January 12 in Tianjin, China, suffers a handicap that could easily be corrected through surgery. Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), says there is good reason to believe that will not happen.

Steve Mosher PRI”Her parents — because she is a girl, and because they want another child, a boy, and because they want a perfect child like the Chinese government tells all Chinese they should have — have decided to sentence her to death,” Mosher explains.

Baby Mei has been placed in a “dying room.” She is being given no assistance whatsoever and is not expected to live to see her one-month birthday. Most families in the People’s Republic of China are limited to just one baby, and local officials are responsible for overseeing that policy.

“This is a legal baby under the Chinese one-child policy, but of course the officials who are under pressure to meet their quotas are happy to see babies die because that makes it easier for them to please their superiors by keeping the birth rate down,” Mosher notes. “So they’ve refused to intervene to help this little girl.”

The PRI president is hopeful Americans will tell the Chinese that the practice is barbaric and should end — and they can do so, he suggests, by contacting the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC.

This is the type of thing that happens when countries and people get on the slippery slope of thinking they have the right to decide who lives or dies-We have abortion and euthanasia is happening -wonder whats next?

On my blog and at SUFA, I’ve been posting a number of comments with the same theme:

“There is no way out of the disaster”

Charles Rowley, Professor of Economics at George Mason University has a blog and I’ve reposted a few comments I’ve made there on my blog and here as well.

Prof. Rowley is writing a comment on Alan Meltzer’s comments in the Wall Street Journal.

Meltzer is the preeminent expert on the Federal Reserve System – as such, his comments on the FED must be strongly considered.

Prof. Rowley is expanding on the short piece of Alan Meltzer – and I believe his comments and thoughts are critical for you, at SUFA, to read.

It is worth noting that if a learnedly economic autodidact (Black Flag), the preeminent expert (Alan Meltzer) and a lettered academic at a preeminent school of economic study (Prof. Rowley) make essentially the same predictions – I would urge the utmost attention to what they say.

Today, as Judy knows, was a difficult day to say the least. Last night we had a nice snow storm and ended up with 19 inches in less that 12 hours. That’s unusual for here, don’t remember much more than 16 at any one time. I work at a hospital, so as normal, I got called in to help dig out. We’re in good shape as I speak, now to attack my drive and deck, LOL!

Anyway, with all this BS talk from the Dems about how healthcare is all screwed up, I thought I’d tell what happened. Forget a morning shift, the only ones who could come were either in walkind distance, or had a good 4 x 4. Our kitchen staff was less than 20% at 7 am. The CEO, COO, and SR VP and their wives, came in and worked in the kitchen to ensure that the patients were properly fed. It’s one of the rare times this past year or two, that I was kinda proud of working there. Just thought I’d pass that along, because those of us in healthcare really do care, despite what the jerks in DC imply!

It’s been awhile since we kicked the patent horse around so thought this interesting.

It appears that the issue is burning on both ends. Protection of the authors copyrights and a deal that will give google sole right to publish scanned books in different format. For the life of me I don’t understand how google can get a sole right to publish already existing materials online. If I read this right it is further proof we have entered an alternate reality.

@Anita – I did not watch her. After spending hours shoveling snow I cracked open a cold one and watched NASCAR. Am now watching the MMA Fights. As usual I will wait for all the fact checking to run its course and then take a peak. She’d have to break some new ground Anita before I consider her much more than a closet-socialist who is barely capable of spewing the latest hate filled invective that would melt her if shown on her. We’ll see. Am at least glad that MSNBC decided to cover it. ;-)

Yep. Me & the dogs took a nice ride to the lake. They loved it! Ran their fool heads off. 2 labs livin the high life. Made me feel good watchin em. They are so tired right now- they will be no good til Wednesday :)

My two were funny, jumping like deer in the back yard just to move. I’ll clean out an area for them to do their thing tomorrow. They had a blast playing when I got home from work :) It was great to watch!

If you ski, come for that or snowboarding. My son’s are into that big time when they get the chance. Tahoe is nice, but watch out for Tahoe Tessie.

If you come for the summer, come around August, that’s when we have Hot August Nights, where all the old cars are on display. All kind of events take place during the summer. We have river rafting on the 4th of July, Air races in Sept. as well as the balloon races, Oct, is the Italian festival, heck, there are so many things that happen I can’t remember them all. Oh yea, we also have street vibrations, which consist of 1000’s of motorcycles. Outhouse racing in Virginia City during the summer. Memorial and Veterans Day parades in May , and in November. Ice skating during the winter outdoors where the old Mapes Hotel and Casino used to be. Bowling at the Bowling Stadium for 4 to 5 months out of the year. All kinds of thing to do really.

Just a myth about some lake monster like Loch Ness. We have to Ferry boats that go to Emeral Island and the captain of the boat talks about these diver that wen tdown into the lake and never came back because of Tahoe Tessi. Scares the crap out of people, especially little kids.

We haven’t had one since 97, but the streets can get pretty bad when it rains a lot. about a year ago or so, the rain just didn’t stop, and our street started flooding and I had to go move my car because the water was getting pretty close to getting inside. About another 1/2 inch, and my would have floated down the street. We get some pretty stiff winds as well here, about 95 to 100 mph here in the valley.

WASHINGTON–The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.

(Credit: Anne Broache/CNET) As far back as a 2006 speech, Mueller had called for data retention on the part of Internet providers, and emphasized the point two years later when explicitly asking Congress to enact a law making it mandatory. But it had not been clear before that the FBI was asking companies to begin to keep logs of what Web sites are visited, which few if any currently do.

The FBI is not alone in renewing its push for data retention. As CNET reported earlier this week, a survey of state computer crime investigators found them to be nearly unanimous in supporting the idea. Matt Dunn, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in the Department of Homeland Security, also expressed support for the idea during the task force meeting.

Greg Motta, the chief of the FBI’s digital evidence section, said that the bureau was trying to preserve its existing ability to conduct criminal investigations. Federal regulations in place since at least 1986 require phone companies that offer toll service to “retain for a period of 18 months” records including “the name, address, and telephone number of the caller, telephone number called, date, time and length of the call.”

At Thursday’s meeting (PDF) of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group, which was created by Congress and organized by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Motta stressed that the bureau was not asking that content data, such as the text of e-mail messages, be retained.

“The question at least for the bureau has been about non-content transactional data to be preserved: transmission records, non-content records…addressing, routing, signaling of the communication,” Motta said. Director Mueller recognizes, he added “there’s going to be a balance of what industry can bear…He recommends origin and destination information for non-content data.”

Motta pointed to a 2006 resolution from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which called for the “retention of customer subscriber information, and source and destination information for a minimum specified reasonable period of time so that it will be available to the law enforcement community.”

Recording what Web sites are visited, though, is likely to draw both practical and privacy objections.

“We’re not set up to keep URL information anywhere in the network,” said Drew Arena, Verizon’s vice president and associate general counsel for law enforcement compliance.

And, Arena added, “if you were do to deep packet inspection to see all the URLs, you would arguably violate the Wiretap Act.”

Another industry representative with knowledge of how Internet service providers work was unaware of any company keeping logs of what Web sites its customers visit.

If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant.

What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing. The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as http://reviews.cnet.com/Music/2001-6450_7-0.html.

While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it. That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States.

The technical challenges also may be formidable. John Seiver, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine who represents cable providers, said one of his clients had experience with a law enforcement request that required the logging of outbound URLs.

“Eighteen million hits an hour would have to have been logged,” a staggering amount of data to sort through, Seiver said. The purpose of the FBI’s request was to identify visitors to two URLs, “to try to find out…who’s going to them.”

A Justice Department representative said the department does not have an official position on data retention.

I think the Dems have already faced judgment from the people on this health care bill, but yet, they are still determined to cram it down our throats.

President Barack Obama, seen here on February 4, vowed to beat a “blizzard”…

Obama Highlights Story of Breast Cancer Victim Who Requested Burial in Obama T-Shirt

Grow the F Up: SNL Skit Unleashes Rahms Favorite Phrases

President Barack Obama vowed Saturday to beat a “blizzard” of opposition and to salvage his crusade for change, leaving a snow-buried White House to rally Democrats spooked by looming November polls.

Obama motorcaded through deserted Washington streets during a historic winter storm to fire up a party rocked by panic and disaffection after the president’s reform drive hit a roadblock after just a year in power.

“(It’s) good to be among friends. So committed to the future of this party and this country … a blizzard … Snowmageddon here in DC!” Obama told Democratic National Committee members hunkered down in a Washington hotel.

Obama sharply warned that he would not give up on his effort to pass health care reform through Congress, even though the loss of the Democratic Senate supermajority leaves his wavering party few easy options to enact it.

“Just in case there’s any confusion out there, let me be clear. I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform,” Obama said, in one of his most feisty speeches since his 2008 election campaign.

“I’m not going to walk away from the American people. I’m not going to walk away on this challenge. I’m not going to walk away on any challenge.’

On Friday, Obama admitted health care reform could die in Congress, and warned Democrats they would face the judgement of voters in November’s mid-term congressional polls if they quit the fight on his top priority issue.

The remarks were seen by some observers as a sign that Obama was contemplating admitting defeat on health care, a view his comments on Saturday seemed to be designed to dispel.

The president argued that to pass health care, and other top agenda issues, he and his party would have to change the poisoned political culture in the US capital, and by implication, win some Republican support for his initiatives.

“We’re going to have to change the prevailing politics in this town.

“We may be moving forward against the prevailing winds. Sometimes it may be against a blizzard. But we’re going to live up to our responsibility to lead.”

It remains unclear however if Republicans will see any political advantage in working with Obama, considering a revival in their political fortunes has been based on blanket opposition to his agenda.

Hugo Chávez likes to say that Venezuela is a democracy and that a majority of the electorate supports him and his “21st Century Socialism.” Or at least he used to make that claim. Last week the strongman gave up trying to maintain a democratic image.

Referring to nationwide civil protests—led by university students—he warned the country Thursday that if they “intensify” he is ready to take “radical measures.”

Given that the Chávez government already expropriates property at will, jails political opponents, polices prices, controls foreign currency exchange, seizes media outlets and fires rubber bullets and tear gas at demonstrators, his …

Such uncertainty as still existed concerning the reality of a congressional race by Willie Herenton seemed to go out the window for good Saturday, The former Memphis mayor kicked off his candidacy for the 9th district Democratic nomination before a sizeable — and almost entirely African-American — crowd at the University of Memphis-area Holiday Inn on Central Avenue.

In keeping with the composition of his audience — and with the reality of a contest that requires him to unseat a sitting incumbent, U.S. Representative Steve Cohen, whom he once supported — Herenton pitched his remarks squarely on the theme of “proportional representation” for blacks in the 9th District.

Noting at one point that there were eleven congressional seats from Tennessee — two in the Senate and nine in the House — Herenton said, “We just want one!” — the “we” being identified as “people who look like me.”

The event was in many ways a throwback to his first race for mayor back in 1991, when Herenton was regarded as an underdog in his challenge to incumbent mayor Dick Hackett and relied out of necessity on grass-roots blacks like those who predominated in the ballroom crowd on Saturday.

The ex-mayor reminded his listeners of that come-from-behind triumph in that first of his five victorious mayoral races and ended up telling them, “We will win this election!,” and like some terminator returned to “retrieve what we lost in representation.,” assured them, “I am back!”

Along the way he spelled out some of his mayoral achievements — $89 million in the city’s financial reserve when he left office as against $3 million when he was sworn in; the conversion of a “desolate and barren” downtown into a “flourishing” one; the “dramatic transformation” of dilapidated housing projects into vibrant new developments.

But the gist of his remarks dramatized his personal situation in ways he related to the history of blacks in America. “When Herenton arrived, black folks arrived in high places,” the first elected black mayor said. But:” I’ve been the target of people who want to dismantle what we’ve built…all because I’m a man, all because I served the people and broke barriers and have been independent.”

Herenton cited the lengthy legal jeopardy he had endured because of his role in a “private transaction” involving the sale of Greyhound Bus property and the local terminal’s relocation, contrasting it with his well-publicized charges that erstwhile Beale Street entrepreneur John Elkington had misappropriated funds and with weekend news about the indictment of three former Animal Shelter employees.

“The FBI spent millions of dollars trying to send me to jail…but there are $6 million unaccounted for…and they’re trying to lock three black folks up about some dogs.” Herenton also referenced what we charged had been a blackmail plot by political enemies — one, however, that had not resulted in formal indictments. “I thought ‘criminal intent’ was a crime. It is for black folks, but it ain’t for white folks,” the ex-mayor said bitterly.

(Two members of Herenton’s audience Saturday were African-American entrepreneur Elvin Moon of Los Angeles, whose involvement with Herenton in the Greyhound transaction had put him, too, under investigation, and Marty Grusin, one of Herenton’s legal advisers. Both said they said been assured that Herenton’s legal jeopardy was at an end, though no explicit announcement to that effect has been made by Department of Justice authorities.)

At one point in his speech, Herenton gestured toward a group of children who stood behind him on stage, holding red-and-white “Herenton/Congress” campaign signs, The former mayor and would-be congressman said, “They ought to have opportunities in America. Every opportunity that African Americans have got to serve as leader, we’ve got to go after….They need to see people that look like them in positions of leadership.”

Herenton did not refer directly to Cohen but indulged in several dismissive statements meant to belittle the professed achievements of the congressman, who sponsored a congressional resolution apologizing for the former institution of slavery and who has actively sought to rename various public properties for eminent local African Americans.

After mentioned slavery, segregation, and discrimination, Herenton said, “The residual of those shames is still with us. I’m not going to ‘apologize.’…I’ll try to make conditions better.” Instead of naming buildings, he would “help black folks to own some buildings.” Instead of naming highways, he would get African American firms involved in the construction of them.

Herenton included in his speech an appeal to “fair-minded” whites to “understand us and join us” and made a point of saying that his mayoral administrations had been “inclusive” without regard to race and gender.

But in most regards Saturday’s kick-off event evoked the political atmosphere of 1991 when black and white voters were starkly divided along racial lines. One difference between then and now, as both Herenton and his longtime political ally, Shelby County Commissioner Sidney Chism, somewhat scornfully acknowledged, was that considerable numbers of blacks had aligned themselves with Cohen, who won reelection handily in 2008 with overwhelming majority support in black precincts.

(One of Chism’s milder passages, when he took the stage to convene the kick-off, went like this: “We’ve even got some of our preachers saying, ‘Well, he could be polka-dot, he could be anything.’ Look at your church and see what they look like!……What is disheartening to me is people who look like me who tell me it don’t make no difference.”)

The look and sound of things Saturday was clear indication that Herenton intends to re-gather the 9th District’s black vote into his camp, as monolithically as possible. His success or failure in doing so will largely determine the outcome of his current race.

Other than via the presence of a few candidates seeking election or reelection this year — something characteristic of any large-scale political event — there was no noticeable turnout Saturday of well-known politicians or public officials, black or white, and no public endorsement of Herenton save the obvious ones of Chism and attorney Ricky Wilkins, who shared the stage with the ex-mayor.

Willie Herenton clearly has his work cut out for him, but it has to be remembered that he is still unbeaten in political races. A defeat in 2010 would be his first.

My weekend has been very nice. I won’t rub in tho’. This is the first ‘real’ weekend I’ve had in over a month and its been wonderful. We got three days! Whoo-Hoo! We’re hoping to take the boat out this afternoon, but the weather doesn’t seem to be shaping up for it. We want to leave the security of the lagoon and try the open ocean. We also want to do it the first time in conditions that won’t result in our being rescued. We’re still pretty new to sailing, so caution is the word of the day. Barry likes the challenge of wind and rain and swells no higher than four feet. I can handle the swells but too much wind makes me nervous especially when the boat really starts to lean. Its seems very stable and has 900lbs of lead in the keel, but I still freak out a bit. I’m not so much worried for me. I float like a cork. Barry isn’t like that, and doesn’t fair well in the water without his fins. We have life vests handy, but don’t usually put them on (icky tan lines, LOL). I worry for him if we capsize. Eventually we’d be searched for and rescued, but who needs it the drama? Best to wait until conditions are more to our skill level. There are people here who sailed in from all over the world. The stories they tell have cured me of any ’round the world sailing notions I might have had. I think I’m quite to content not venture any further than line of site of Kwajelein.

February 7, 2010 | 7:58 PM ET
President Obama Moves Forward on Health Care, Invites Republicans to the White House for Televised Meeting

President Obama signaled Sunday he is not ready to let the issue of health care reform go away, planning a meeting at the White House with both Democrats and Republicans later this month to discuss the issue. He also promises it to be more open and bi-partisan.

The president said he wants ” to consult closely with our Republican colleagues” and ask them “to put their ideas on the table,” during an interview Sunday with CBS News anchor Katie Couric.

This is the second day in a row the president had pushed the issue of health care reform moving forward, having just told Democrats at a winter meeting Saturday in Washington, “So just in case there’s any confusion out there, let me be clear. I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform.”

When asked if inviting the GOP to the White House meant the president was going to start at square one, the Mr. Obama responded, “I think that what I want to do, is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there, and I want to be very specific, how do you guys want to lower costs, how do guys intend to reform the insurance markets so people with pre-existing conditions for example can get health care…and if we can to step-by-step through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements, then procedurally there’s no reason why we can’t do it it a lot faster than the process took last year.”

Senior officials tell FOX News’ Senior White House Correspondent Major Garrett that the president had made the decision on the bi-partisan, bicameral health care meeting before the State of the Union address. He worked with his top speech writer to build a “preview” in the address.

The White House will not discuss the goal(s) of the health care talks or what affect, if any, they will have on the final health care bill or the schedule for passage of a reform package.

Officials also tell FOX that President Obama did not call GOP leaders to discuss the renewed health care talks, but deferred to legislative staff to reach out to Republican leadership staff.

The half-day bipartisan session will take place Feb. 25 and will be aired live on television, according to the Associated Press. It was not immediately clear if it would air on C-Span. The president repeatedly on the campaign trail said that health care negotiations would be televised on C-Span, something his critics have pointed out means breaking his promise and the pledge of a more transparent government.

Republican support is something the president needed after losing the supermajority Democratic vote in the Senate after Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat in a special election in Massachusetts last month. Mr. Brown ran his campaign touting he would go to Washington and vote against President’s Obama’s health care reform. He was seated as the 41st Republican Senator last week.

I don’t think he wants to be. I think that he now feels it is the only chance he has of getting it passed. He thought they could say screw Republicans and do it the way the far left wanted it done. Then they found out they had to water it down, so they did. Now they realize they can’t pass it at all unless they get bipartisan support so he is figuring he will play the game, get it passed, claim victory, and begin the process of modifying it to make it what he wanted in the first place.

Or is he just trying to set up the Repubs to take the fall by saying he offered a hand but they slapped it away? My feelings are they should tear up the current bills and start over. This time with incremental steps and metrics that can be measured. If a solution does not work within 3 years scap it and try something else. Start with the simple ones, tort reform with real medical malpractice consequences, universal billiing forms, universal medical information exchange formats (not a national government run database), expanded HSA plans w/catastrophic coverage, interstate insurance sales, reduced mandates,…. Add enforcement so the bad insurance companies can be weeded out. None of these require taxes except the latter, just rules changes that all should be able to live with. Work on the things everyone can agree are good and can incrementally improve a system that already works for many. Emphasis should be on finding was to reduce costs and overhead in the system. Support medical providers that implement real quality management systems. Once costs come down, more people will be able to afford coverage and will buy in.